Do you honestly think that Obama isn't beholden to... No. And I didn't say that. I said he has fewer debts than McCain because he hasn't been in there as long.
I say OM and you reply "How can you say that O=0? How naive!"
Oh, And calling me naive doesn't make your oversimplification any more correct.
It may be that Obama changes nothing. However, I think this statement is an exaggeration:
but he is just as much beholden to special interests and the Washington political system as John McCain. Obama doesn't take the kind of money McCain does. He is a junior Senator so he doesn't have the contacts that a Washington insider like McCain does. He hasn't ever been under investigation for any scandals, so he probably doesn't owe anyone the kinds of favors McCain does.
I'm not arguing who is better, I'm just saying that Obama is definitely not as beholden to anyone in the way McCain is.
I know several people in the intelligence community, mostly hackers, CS researchers, and technical people. They are all against telecom immunity and against the current wiretapping procedures. (One of them actually works for the company that made the P2P throttling software for Comcast). Whenever I discuss the subject, they are sympathetic and tell me that the U.S. government abuses their powers far more than is publicly known.
Things will TRULY be bad when they are afraid to tell me that they are against it.
Firstly, food is a consumable item so that isn't even close. Food does not broadcast it's existence to everyone around and offer itself. Food does not have a special protocol where you can ask the food if it is okay to eat it, and it responds with okay.
If you want a food analogy, try this. It's like walking around a public park, and finding a food that is growing in the park, that is not being eaten at the moment. The food instantly replenishes after someone eats it. An automated machine there is shouting "eat this food" and offers an ID # to anyone who wants the food.
- Bandwidth is not available in a fixed quantity. It is a fixed rate (hence the food replenishes) - The router has security options, and they were turned off - The router announces to everyone that the bandwidth is freely available. - The computer automatically connects to the router when within range (I didn't even go that far in my example, because this food analyogy is just really far off the mark and it is hard to get there from here)
Cordless handsets and base stations are not intentionally made to be universally compatible. They don't have a handshake protocol for allowing anyone with any standard handset to connect to your base station. And there's not a switch for "allow anyone to connect to this base station" on them. To do so would require hacking the handset, or getting 1 in a million lucky to have the same ID.
The complexity is that it isn't as simple as government -vs- private. There are several reasonable ways to do it. The government could own the lines, and contract a private company to maintain them. Or the private company could lease the rights to them from the government. Or the company could merely provide service over the lines while not owning them.
Where it becomes a problem in the US is that it is not done any of these reasonable ways.:( The phone company owns the lines, yet the money is government. The company also is the sole provider of service over the lines. And in theory, they only get all of this if they obey the rules. But nobody bothers. Same thing with cable service.
Electrical service and water service in the US is done somewhat more sanely. Water is provided by the government, and contractors do the work. Electricity is split so that the lines are provided by one company, but the electricity and service is done by another. So no single company "owns" the lines and can abuse it quite the same way (although some of this varies state-to-state).
My point is merely that it often isn't as simple as "privately owned" or "publically owned" - there are shades of gray, some of which work very well.
The headline says that the wireframes are not subject to copyright, and that the judge used an analogy to photographs. But photographs are subject to copyright, so I'm very confused. From the article, it sounds like Toyota re-used the wireframes over and over and the company sued. But if the company has the equivalent copyright to a photograph, then they should win. Toyota would have to license each distribution of the copy. That doesn't mean that all possible wire frames of those cars are owned by the company, but certainly their copies are.
Either way, it sounds like this only applies to completely unadorned wireframe meshes, which won't apply to games or 3D art or anything. So I don't think this ruling is too much to worry about. It probably means that this company needs to change their pricing model so that they sell their services, instead of licensing the resulting model. It really sucks to find this out after they did the contract, and it is really smarmy that Toyota pulled this on them then went legal on them.
The summary acts like the UCITA failed and is trying to come back. But UCITA passed Maryland and Virginia, and probably some other states too. I think Massachusetts actually passed an anti-UCITA law.
It would be highly ironic if the EFF used your personal information inappropriately, since that is the kind of cruft they fight against. (Not that this means it won't happen)
How is this insightful? The guy basically says there is no evidence for impeachment, and it is just about popularity. Yet the raticle is a PDF listing the evidence for impeachment?
Kucinich:
X+3 = 4
X=4-3
therefore, X=1
Charles Dodgeson:
But X is a variable! An unknown! You'll need to submit a proof to know the actual value.
I can understand the height issue, and there will always bee a need for larger vehicles. But the thing about seeing over traffic disturbs me.
The need to see over traffic just makes the problem worse. You want to see over traffic, so you get a taller vehicle. That's fine, except now everyone else who could see just find before can't see over you. So they also need higher vehicles. And they you can't see over them, so you need a yet taller vehicles. And each time we do this we get less fuel efficiency and less safety.
Although EVE gets my blood pumping, it doesn't really allow for spectators. The game is almost a text adventure game in that aspect. And fighting generally takes place in areas reserved for PvP where regular players won't go. So it will never be as exciting as what this guy describes in UO.
I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order. From what I know, prison has three possible purposes: 1) Deterrence. 2) Removal of a dangerous person from society. 3) Rehabilitation.
I make no statements about how successful or appropriate it is for any of these purposes. And it is not an attempt to validate the US's absurd sentences.
#1: laws, but has all of this legislation actually cut down on identity theft? Legislation does not stop crime. Prosecution stops crime. Besides, these laws are weak. They are unenforcable since they state "if you did something wrong, you must tell us" and obviously if they don't tell they don't get caught. And even if they do tell, there is nothing you can do to stop it and it doesn't make the companies any more likely to take security measures. So these bills are probably a good idea that doesn't go far enough.
#2: I called Comcast today to register for service (yeah yeah, make fun of me, but they are the only game in town) and they asked me for my SSN. When I told them I couldn't do that, they hung-up on me. So this just shows me that not only is this business as usual, but it is getting worse. 10 years ago nobody would have dared ask for a social security number for something like this. How come things are getting worse while at the same time we are supposedly doing all this stuff to prevent identity theft?
Bottom line: nobody cares, nobody does anything about it. The only ones who do are academics and a vocal minority like Slashdot.
Maybe I'm using the wrong tools, but I've never been able to make an AJAX application without writing Javascript. I suspect that is a pipe dream much like the idea of making a UI solely by dragging and dropping controls onto a form. It looks great in documentation and demos, but never in the real world.
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
Obama might disappoint me. But you asked what he is going to change. I answered that based on his voting record and his current actions. I know, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. But it would be silly to assume that he is going to do a 180 degree change from the entire way he has lived his live up to this point.
Besides, I'd rather take my chances that Obama is going to change things since he says he will. Sure beats assuming that McCain will change things, since he says he wont. heh, I guess by that logic, I should vote for George Bush.:)
But in the mean time, you are doing nothing to make that candidate possible.
Let me back-up and assume that perhaps I have misunderstood or made too many assumptions. It sounds like you are trying to get a viable candidate onto the ballot. You are doing that by trying to convince people of something, not sure what since that wasn't in the post. Perhaps you are trying to convince them to run for office. Or perhaps just explaining to them why the current options are not viable.
I propose a concrete way to get viable candidates onto the ballot.
1. Increasing the # of viewpoints and voices in the discussion will increase the possibility of a viable candidate. 2. If a party gets 5% of the vote, they become part of the discussion 3. Every vote for a 3rd-party gets us closer to the 5%. 4. 50% of the people don't vote because they want another voice. 5. Ergo, those people should vote for 3rd-parties.
There are other reasons to vote for 3rd-parties. - Some of those 3rd-parties actually have a majority of followers (Ex: Green party back in 2000) but those followers don't vote. - People follow by example more than based on pure oration - If those 3rd-parties get into senate/house seats, they get a chance to change the election rules more in the favor of 3rd-parties
It sounds to me, from your posts, that you believe that telling other people to vote for a 3rd party is a good idea, but that actually doing it yourself is not. I base this on the fact that you did not tell me not to vote for a 3rd-party, or cite any reason I shouldn't, or disagree with my statements about the 5%. So I assumed you agreed with that. But you disagreed with the statement that you yourself should vote for a 3rd-party on the basis that you individually don't make a difference. I am confused as to why you think the other people you convince do make a difference, but you do not. If everyone did as you do, then we would never gain any ground.
I cannot enact the change by myself. I am saying I would rather use my freedom of speech to bring about a situation where I can join with everyone else to enact the change. That makes no sense! So everyone else must change, and then after they change, you will change too?
Slashdot Mirror
I say OM and you reply "How can you say that O=0? How naive!"
Oh, And calling me naive doesn't make your oversimplification any more correct.
It may be that Obama changes nothing. However, I think this statement is an exaggeration:
but he is just as much beholden to special interests and the Washington political system as John McCain. Obama doesn't take the kind of money McCain does. He is a junior Senator so he doesn't have the contacts that a Washington insider like McCain does. He hasn't ever been under investigation for any scandals, so he probably doesn't owe anyone the kinds of favors McCain does.I'm not arguing who is better, I'm just saying that Obama is definitely not as beholden to anyone in the way McCain is.
I know several people in the intelligence community, mostly hackers, CS researchers, and technical people. They are all against telecom immunity and against the current wiretapping procedures. (One of them actually works for the company that made the P2P throttling software for Comcast). Whenever I discuss the subject, they are sympathetic and tell me that the U.S. government abuses their powers far more than is publicly known.
Things will TRULY be bad when they are afraid to tell me that they are against it.
No. It is not.
Firstly, food is a consumable item so that isn't even close. Food does not broadcast it's existence to everyone around and offer itself. Food does not have a special protocol where you can ask the food if it is okay to eat it, and it responds with okay.
If you want a food analogy, try this. It's like walking around a public park, and finding a food that is growing in the park, that is not being eaten at the moment. The food instantly replenishes after someone eats it. An automated machine there is shouting "eat this food" and offers an ID # to anyone who wants the food.
- Bandwidth is not available in a fixed quantity. It is a fixed rate (hence the food replenishes)
- The router has security options, and they were turned off
- The router announces to everyone that the bandwidth is freely available.
- The computer automatically connects to the router when within range (I didn't even go that far in my example, because this food analyogy is just really far off the mark and it is hard to get there from here)
No. It is not.
Cordless handsets and base stations are not intentionally made to be universally compatible. They don't have a handshake protocol for allowing anyone with any standard handset to connect to your base station. And there's not a switch for "allow anyone to connect to this base station" on them. To do so would require hacking the handset, or getting 1 in a million lucky to have the same ID.
The complexity is that it isn't as simple as government -vs- private. There are several reasonable ways to do it. The government could own the lines, and contract a private company to maintain them. Or the private company could lease the rights to them from the government. Or the company could merely provide service over the lines while not owning them.
Where it becomes a problem in the US is that it is not done any of these reasonable ways. :( The phone company owns the lines, yet the money is government. The company also is the sole provider of service over the lines. And in theory, they only get all of this if they obey the rules. But nobody bothers. Same thing with cable service.
Electrical service and water service in the US is done somewhat more sanely. Water is provided by the government, and contractors do the work. Electricity is split so that the lines are provided by one company, but the electricity and service is done by another. So no single company "owns" the lines and can abuse it quite the same way (although some of this varies state-to-state).
My point is merely that it often isn't as simple as "privately owned" or "publically owned" - there are shades of gray, some of which work very well.
So if you had to go into a war zone with one, or the other, which would you take?
The headline says that the wireframes are not subject to copyright, and that the judge used an analogy to photographs. But photographs are subject to copyright, so I'm very confused. From the article, it sounds like Toyota re-used the wireframes over and over and the company sued. But if the company has the equivalent copyright to a photograph, then they should win. Toyota would have to license each distribution of the copy. That doesn't mean that all possible wire frames of those cars are owned by the company, but certainly their copies are.
Either way, it sounds like this only applies to completely unadorned wireframe meshes, which won't apply to games or 3D art or anything. So I don't think this ruling is too much to worry about. It probably means that this company needs to change their pricing model so that they sell their services, instead of licensing the resulting model. It really sucks to find this out after they did the contract, and it is really smarmy that Toyota pulled this on them then went legal on them.
Anyone who votes for a law that is later struck down as unconstitutional isn't qualified to hold office.
Firstly, nothing was stolen.
Secondly, the WiFi situation was more like a bright neon flashin sign that says "open internet access available here"
Of course then, you can sue them, get money, PR, AND have the code.
The summary acts like the UCITA failed and is trying to come back. But UCITA passed Maryland and Virginia, and probably some other states too. I think Massachusetts actually passed an anti-UCITA law.
It would be highly ironic if the EFF used your personal information inappropriately, since that is the kind of cruft they fight against. (Not that this means it won't happen)
Good: It might almost be playable on today's top-of-the-line laptops.
How is this insightful? The guy basically says there is no evidence for impeachment, and it is just about popularity. Yet the raticle is a PDF listing the evidence for impeachment?
Kucinich:
X+3 = 4
X=4-3
therefore, X=1
Charles Dodgeson:
But X is a variable! An unknown! You'll need to submit a proof to know the actual value.
I can understand the height issue, and there will always bee a need for larger vehicles. But the thing about seeing over traffic disturbs me.
The need to see over traffic just makes the problem worse. You want to see over traffic, so you get a taller vehicle. That's fine, except now everyone else who could see just find before can't see over you. So they also need higher vehicles. And they you can't see over them, so you need a yet taller vehicles. And each time we do this we get less fuel efficiency and less safety.
Although EVE gets my blood pumping, it doesn't really allow for spectators. The game is almost a text adventure game in that aspect. And fighting generally takes place in areas reserved for PvP where regular players won't go. So it will never be as exciting as what this guy describes in UO.
1) Deterrence.
2) Removal of a dangerous person from society.
3) Rehabilitation.
I make no statements about how successful or appropriate it is for any of these purposes. And it is not an attempt to validate the US's absurd sentences.
#1:
laws, but has all of this legislation actually cut down on identity theft? Legislation does not stop crime. Prosecution stops crime. Besides, these laws are weak. They are unenforcable since they state "if you did something wrong, you must tell us" and obviously if they don't tell they don't get caught. And even if they do tell, there is nothing you can do to stop it and it doesn't make the companies any more likely to take security measures. So these bills are probably a good idea that doesn't go far enough.
#2:
I called Comcast today to register for service (yeah yeah, make fun of me, but they are the only game in town) and they asked me for my SSN. When I told them I couldn't do that, they hung-up on me. So this just shows me that not only is this business as usual, but it is getting worse. 10 years ago nobody would have dared ask for a social security number for something like this. How come things are getting worse while at the same time we are supposedly doing all this stuff to prevent identity theft?
Bottom line: nobody cares, nobody does anything about it. The only ones who do are academics and a vocal minority like Slashdot.
Maybe I'm using the wrong tools, but I've never been able to make an AJAX application without writing Javascript. I suspect that is a pipe dream much like the idea of making a UI solely by dragging and dropping controls onto a form. It looks great in documentation and demos, but never in the real world.
First Google hit on a search for obama and signing statements Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.
Obama might disappoint me. But you asked what he is going to change. I answered that based on his voting record and his current actions. I know, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. But it would be silly to assume that he is going to do a 180 degree change from the entire way he has lived his live up to this point.
:)
Besides, I'd rather take my chances that Obama is going to change things since he says he will. Sure beats assuming that McCain will change things, since he says he wont. heh, I guess by that logic, I should vote for George Bush.
Vote for change: Bush/Cheney 2008!
But in the mean time, you are doing nothing to make that candidate possible.
Let me back-up and assume that perhaps I have misunderstood or made too many assumptions. It sounds like you are trying to get a viable candidate onto the ballot. You are doing that by trying to convince people of something, not sure what since that wasn't in the post. Perhaps you are trying to convince them to run for office. Or perhaps just explaining to them why the current options are not viable.
I propose a concrete way to get viable candidates onto the ballot.
1. Increasing the # of viewpoints and voices in the discussion will increase the possibility of a viable candidate.
2. If a party gets 5% of the vote, they become part of the discussion
3. Every vote for a 3rd-party gets us closer to the 5%.
4. 50% of the people don't vote because they want another voice.
5. Ergo, those people should vote for 3rd-parties.
There are other reasons to vote for 3rd-parties.
- Some of those 3rd-parties actually have a majority of followers (Ex: Green party back in 2000) but those followers don't vote.
- People follow by example more than based on pure oration
- If those 3rd-parties get into senate/house seats, they get a chance to change the election rules more in the favor of 3rd-parties
It sounds to me, from your posts, that you believe that telling other people to vote for a 3rd party is a good idea, but that actually doing it yourself is not. I base this on the fact that you did not tell me not to vote for a 3rd-party, or cite any reason I shouldn't, or disagree with my statements about the 5%. So I assumed you agreed with that. But you disagreed with the statement that you yourself should vote for a 3rd-party on the basis that you individually don't make a difference. I am confused as to why you think the other people you convince do make a difference, but you do not. If everyone did as you do, then we would never gain any ground.
So... did that clarify anything?
I see you have graduated from the Dogbert school of debate, with such brilliant and inarguable responses such as:
- Bah!
- You are so naive
- I don't think so